Iran’s Oil Minister, Rostam Ghasemi, announced that Iran is working on a plan to stop exporting oil to “some countries,” and the European Union’s ban of the country’s oil imports has no impact on Iran’s crude production.

According to many Iranian media sources, as reported by BBC Persian Service on January 30, Ghasemi reacted to the news of the European Union’s decision to embargo Iran’s oil by stating, “Based on the future plans of the Oil Ministry, [Iran] will soon stop its oil exports to some countries.”

Ghasemi indicated that Iran will always find a market for its oil and it is the European countries that should worry about finding an alternative source of petroleum. Ghasemi completely dismissed any concern about the European Union’s embargo, which will be implemented by July 1, adding, “Iran has a market for its oil exports even with cuts [in sales] to Europe and will face no problem in this regard.”

According to IRNA, addressing reporters on Tuesday, Iran’ Oil Minister stated, “Iran’s oil cannot be omitted [removed] from the international market…European countries have imposed the oil sanctions against Iran themselves and the impacts of these sanctions will definitely turn back to themselves.”

Ghasemi also reiterated that his ministry is awaiting a decision from the Iranian parliament that is working on a proposal to halt oil exports to Europe. IRNA quoted Ghasemi as saying, “This motion is being examined in the parliament, but it hasn’t been finalized yet and we are waiting for its final results.”

Last week the Foreign Ministers of 27 countries in the European Union sanctioned Iran’s oil in order to force the country to abide by the United Nation’s Security Council resolutions demanding Iran to stop its nuclear activities.

Many western foreign policy experts claim the international sanctions are designed to pressure the Iranian regime and not the people. However, with the recent announcement of the inability of grain shipments to reach the country, this argument becomes harder to make.

According to Reuters, European Union sanctions have halted food import deals to Iran leaving about 400,000 tons of grain held up on at least 10 ships outside Iranian ports.

IAEA Inspections and Iran’s Seemingly Cooperative Reaction

Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran’s foreign minister, announced that the IAEA inspection team is allowed to extend its trip, if they wish.

According to IRNA, Salehi announced on Monday that Iran is “very optimistic about the mission and the outcome” of the IAEA’s inspection trip to Tehran. He added, “The trip was planned for three days, but if the IAEA wishes, the trip can be extended.”

Iran’s Foreign Minister seemed to be trying to diffuse the already tense situation exacerbated due to the recent military threats by Israel and western governments. He urged the United States and the European Union to “replace the sanctions with a policy of engagement.”

The three-day inspection tour by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team began on Sunday.

Based on reports by the Iranian media, Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was killed due the explosion of a bomb near Seyed Khandan, a neighborhood in northern Tehran. According to Fars News, a semiofficial news agency close to the IRGC, Roshan was the Commerce Deputy Director of the Natanz enrichment facility and a professor at the Sharif University, Iran’s leading university in technology, engineering and physical sciences.

According to Fars News, a magnetic bomb was planted under the car of Ahmadi Roshan by an unknown motorcyclist. Iranian officials are blaming Israel and Mojahedin khalq Organization (MKO) for the attack. Mohammd Reza Rahimi, Iran’s first vice-president labeled the event as “state terrorism.”

According to Fars News, a few hours ago Reza Qashqayee, the driver of the assassinated professor who was severely injured in the blast died from his wounds in the hospital. The third victim of the explosion is a wounded pedestrian who has been transferred to a hospital.

Iranian officials seem persistent to continue their nuclear ambitions despite the most recent assassination of their leading nuclear scientists. According to Fars News, addressing a parliament session on Wednesday, vice-speaker of the parliament, Seyed Shahabeddin Sadr, mentioned that terrorist attacks on the lives of Iranian scientists are aimed at stopping Iran’s progress.

“The enemy assumes that it can hinder the Islamic Republic’s move towards progress and growth through such actions, but the experience gained as a result of the enemy’s blind assassination attempts over the last 30 years shows that these assassinations will not influence our nations,” he said. Sadr also warned that such terrorist attacks may backfire because they result in the Iranian nation’s stronger solidarity and determination.

The blast took place on the second anniversary of the assassination of university professor and nuclear scientist, Massoud Ali Mohammadi, who was killed in a similar fashion in January 2010.

Q: The IAEA says Iran is now significantly closer to weaponizaton and has nuclear capability. Should the regime decide to pursue this option? Do you agree with this assessment?

A: The IAEA report cites evidence that points to nuclear weapon R&D. This, along with the growth of enriched uranium stockpiles and progress in its ballistic missiles program, demonstrates that Iran wants the ability to produce a nuclear device. It makes it hard to believe that Iran’s program is for civilian purposes.

But the information in the report is not new. Some national intelligence organisations have known about these activities for a while now, but the IAEA had been cautious to release their findings publically until they were verified.

Nowhere in the report does it say that Iran has a nuclear weapon, or is currently making one, which is why we must be cautious in calling for action immediately.

Q: What evidence in the IAEA report do you find most compelling regarding Iran’s nuclear capability?

A: The piece of information that has attracted the most attention is Iran’s R&D efforts in weaponizaton. But there are actually two other significant points in this report. Firstly, the fact that it was released under the auspices of the IAEA, giving the information contained extra credibility in the eyes of the international community. Secondly, it is the aggregate weight of the information rather than the individual parts that demonstrates Iranian intent. As previously mentioned, it is Iran’s R&D into weaponizaton coupled with its advancing missile program, continued enrichment and the secrecy surrounding its nuclear activities that provides compelling evidence of Iran’s intentions.

Q: The report also indicates that Iran has relied upon foreign materials to develop its program. Do you believe this is accurate?

A: This is one of the most interesting aspects of the report. In its report, the IAEA outlined that a former Soviet scientist and nuclear weapons expert spent some time in Iran and allegedly assisted them in their program. In addition, following an interview with a member of the AQ Khan network, the agency explained that Iran had received bomb designs from the network, including more advanced designs than those sold to Libya in the past. The report also outlines assistance received by other nuclear-weapon states. It is this kind of activity that the sanctions regimes target.

At the moment, Iran has a certain amount of technology, which it either developed by itself, or received outside assistance with. Given Iran’s technological limitations, it is reasonable to concur with the IAEA report. In addition, given the amount of political pressure it was under, the IAEA would not have released this information if it were not sure of its accuracy. According to the report, the intelligence came from multiple sources, and not just Western intelligence sources but information that the IAEA developed on its own, including the information about Iran’s procurement, and black market networks.

Q: The IAEA report states that Iran’s program is far more ambitious and advanced than was believed to be the case. Do you agree with this assessment? In what ways it is ambitious and advanced?

The IAEA report represents the most complete outline of Iran’s nuclear capabilities that government and UN agencies have been prepared to confirm publicly, but it is roughly in line with expectations in the nuclear-security community.

The latest IAEA report confirms that Iran’s program is ambitious and has progressed considerably. But it is important to highlight that up until now, Iran has not made the decision to go nuclear. Its progression has been relatively slow, especially when compared with Pakistan’s crash program. In addition, Iran’s program has been the target of sanctions and sabotage efforts (assassinations, Stuxnet, industrial sabotage) that have further prevented it from advancing as fast as regime heads may have wanted it to advance.

It is also important to highlight Iranian’s perseverance with its nuclear program. No matter what the international community has thrown their way, Iran has declared its commitment to continuing its “peaceful” program. In fact, just this week, in response to the release of the IAEA report, President Ahmadinejad stated that Iran would not “retreat one iota” from its nuclear ambitions.

Q: The IAEA says Iran is now significantly closer to weaponizaton and has nuclear capability. Should the regime decide to pursue this option? Do you agree with this assessment?

A: The fact that Iran is seeking nuclear latency has been well-known to the intelligence and non-proliferation communities for a long time. Both the 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate and the 2009 IAEA report stated, “Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons, if it decides to do so.” For one thing, the new IAEA reports shows that Iran’s progress on nuclear arms experiments has been much milder than alarmists claim. The new IAEA report clearly demonstrates that since 2003 weaponization efforts have become dispersed and are pursued with diminished vigor.

The report contends that the information package Iran received from A.Q. Khan’s illicit nuclear network was more sophisticated than the starter kit that Libya obtained from the same supplier. Nevertheless, the agency does not claim that Iran has been able to master this technology. The IAEA simply highlights Iran’s research and development efforts, which does not readily translate to actual weaponization. Therefore, there is still time for diplomacy to resolving the Iranian nuclear issue. In 2003, the Europeans convinced Iran through diplomacy to admit to its past wrongdoings. The goal should now be to revitalize the diplomatic engagement process and provide Tehran with guarantees that it will not be penalized if it comes clean of its past activities and cooperates with the IAEA. The same approach was successfully employed in the case of Libya.

Q: What evidence in the IAEA report do you find most compelling regarding Iran’s nuclear capability?

A: I think, much like the hype and the fallout surrounding the release of iPhone 4S, the new IAEA report failed to surprise. The report is unprecedented in the scale and scope of the detailed information that it has revealed to the public eye, but contains no new information. Since the agency had pierced Iran’s cloak of nuclear secrecy numerous times in the past, most of the information in the 12-page annex of this report was referenced to previous IAEA publications. Moreover, the report has failed to scrap the word “possible” from the often-used construct “possible military dimension” of Iran’s nuclear program; at best it has rendered the word “probable,” more diplomatically relevant. Nonetheless, evidence on the possibility of ongoing nuclear arms experiments is extremely thin and mostly based on information received from one or two unnamed sources. The agency also does not make a compelling case when it gets to dual-use technologies that could be use for non-nuclear arm related experiments. This part of the report requires more scrutiny from the experts; as for example the exploding bridge-wire detonators have many civilian applications contrary to what the IAEA contends.

For more substance, see page 8 of the annex:

The information indicates that prior to the end of 2003 the above activities took place under a structured program. There are also some indications that some activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device continued after 2003, and that some may still be ongoing.

Q: The report also indicates that Iran has relied upon foreign materials to develop its program. Do you believe this is accurate?

A: Almost all nuclear weapon states benefited from external assistance to develop their atomic arms. Israel enjoyed the US support, while India used American and Canadian technology to obtain the ultimate weapon. Soviet Union aided China in getting the atomic bomb, and in turn helped Pakistan to develop its nuclear weapons program. The fact that Iran has had extensive ties with Russia, Pakistan and North Korea to develop its nuclear program has been public knowledge for a long time. The exact nature of these relations, however, is still opaque, despite the IAEA’s effort to shed more light on it. The new IAEA report is thus not a game-changer.

Q: The IAEA report states that Iran’s program is far more ambitious and advanced than was believed to be the case. Do you agree with this assessment? In what ways it is ambitious and advanced?

A: The Iranian nuclear program is extensive, ambitious and advanced; but it is not a crash program towards nuclear weapons. In fact, the new IAEA report reveals that the pace of Iranian uranium refinement has continued to stagnate. Iran’s antiquated IR-1 machines continue to underperform and five years after Ahmadinejad promised to deploy a new generation of indigenous centrifuges, Iran has yet to set up a complete cascade of them. Yet, the fact that Iran has been willing to pay such a huge price for a program that has virtually no economic rational and energy benefits increases concerns about Iran’s true intentions. Iran’s only reactor in Bushehr merely provides less than two percent of the country’s energy needs, which pales in comparison to 18 percent waste in Iran’s electrical transmission lines.

Iranian officials reject the findings of a report set to be released this week by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which shows that Iran is within the reach of obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Iran’s Foreign Minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, responded to the news of the release of the IAEA report by labeling it as “baseless and false.” According to the Iranian Students’ News Agency, ISNA, Salehi addressed the issue during a press conference on November 5, by stating, “For quite a time there has been controversial talks about a forthcoming IAEA report, which will present some evidence of Iran’s missile activities. There have been similar talks and so called evidence presented in the past. The Islamic Republic has given the necessary replies. We responded to the alleged studies in 117 pages. I believe these documents [IAEA report] are forgeries, but if they insist to publish them, let’s do it and get it over with.”

As reported by the Washington Post, intelligence provided to the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog agency shows that Iran has mastered the critical steps needed to build a nuclear weapon. An article by Joby Warrick published on November 6, in Washington Post, reported that according to the intelligence, Iran appears to have received crucial technical assistance from foreign experts. The IAEA report is expected to be the agency’s most detailed research to date on Iran’s nuclear activities.

Salehi continued his remarks by highlighting the United Sates’ questionable history of accurate intelligence. He provided an example of such false accusations by referring to the United States’ allegations toward Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. “Previously the United States presented such accusations in the form of the Niger scandal. United States’ Secretary of State presented documents to the United Nations and the Security Council. He even mentioned that the Nigerian Prime Minister has signed the documents. This evidence was used as a pretext to attack Iraq. After killing tens of thousands of innocent people, it was discovered that the document was fabricated. The U.S. Secretary of State at the time apologized, but what good is an apology when so many innocent lives are taken away.”

The Iranian Foreign Minister is referring to Colin Powell’s role to garner international support for a multi-national coalition prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. To this end, Powell addressed a plenary session of the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003 to argue in favor of military action. Citing numerous anonymous sources, Powell asserted that “there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.”

Salehi accused the IAEA of violating its neutrality and sided with US intelligence claims under its new Chief Yukiya Amano. Salehi indicated, “He [Yukiya Amano] is using information that his predecessor, Mohamed ElBaradei, said the agency could not authenticate independently.”

Salehi mentioned that it seems like the IAEA has been politicized and it is being forced to make decisions under pressure. “Publish the report. We are aware of the truth. Publish the facts and let’s see what will happen,” Salehi added.

According to Iran Newspaper, a publication affiliated with the Iranian government, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also warned about the “final moment of clash.” According to a report by Iran newspaper on November 5, the Iranian president stated, “The west has mobilized all of its forces to confront and finish Iran at once. It is clear as daylight that NATO forces are panting in excitement to confront Iran. However, this confrontation is not necessarily a military one and could be of a political nature.”

According to Fars News, in an interview with Egypt’s state-owned Al-Akhbar newspaper, Ahmadinejad lashed out at Israel after the country’s President, Shimon Peres, warned that an attack on Iran is increasingly likely. “(the) US and Israel are seeking to rally international support for an attack on Tehran because Iran is a very powerful country with huge capacities and capabilities and the US and Israel are unable to wage an attack on the country alone,” Ahmadinejad said.

Despite Israel’s harsh rhetoric, the Iranian government seems to be holding its position on the nuclear issue. Iranian Parliamentary member, Esmaeil Kowsari, dismissed Israel’s threats of a military action against the Islamic Republic as a “political and military bluff.”

According to Mehr News, a semi-official news agency, Kowsari, the Deputy Chairman of the Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, added, “recent threats made by officials of the US and the Zionist regime are a political and military bluff. The Zionist regime and the US are in no position to attack Iran.”

Seemingly out of the blue, Ahmadinejad and a few other officials, such as the Foreign Minister and the head of the nuclear program, announced on May 9 that Iran would respond to a letter sent by European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton three months prior, in February 2011. Ahmadinejad himself made the declaration during the United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries in Istanbul. Ahmadinejad set out for the meeting almost immediately after the worst of the Intelligence Ministry debacle had passed.

The Iranian Foreign Minister, Ali Akbar Salehi, inadvertently revealed that even with regards to responding to Ashton’s months-old letter, internal political rivalries over authority and jurisdiction in Iran prevail over unified official response. When asked by reporters about the situation of the letter and Iran’s future response, Salehi defensively clarified the matter of jurisdiction and lay responsibility for Iran’s reaction squarely with the president as well as nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, not the Foreign Ministry. Salehi’s irritation at the ambiguity of precisely which aspect of the government shoulders responsibility for the negotiations is evident in his response: “Firstly, the letter sent by Catherine Ashton, the head of EU foreign policy chief, is for Dr. Jalili, not for me, and I have never said that this letter was sent for [the Foreign Ministry],” Salehi protested.

Secondly, Salehi pontificated, the Foreign Ministry’s involvement in the letter was restricted to consultations on the response, but not actual decision-making. “Thirdly, the letter is on Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s table until he’ll say what to do and after that Dr. Jalili is supposed to send a letter, not the Foreign Ministry,” he concluded. Jalili, Iran’s nuclear chief, is known to be a Khamenei loyalist–however, the Supreme Leader’s role regarding the new call for talks remains unknown at this time. If Khamenei ordered the new calls for talks and intended to demonstrate the government’s solidarity on the nuclear program, Salehi’s comments may be taken as a sign that no issue is too sacred for Iran’s elite to use as a political casus belli in their internal struggles for power.

The incoherence of Ahmadinejad’s unexpected announcement was compounded by news that the Bushehr nuclear plant had begun operating at low capacity, a crucial preliminary step in attaining full functionality. Given that the P5+1 have repeatedly declared their entire purpose for negotiations to be addressing concerns over Iran’s nuclear enrichment, Ahmadinejad’s intent to resume negotiations is utterly obviated by Iran’s repeated declaration–including just days after the statement of renewed interest in talks–that nuclear enrichment is non-negotiable. Moreover, Iran received additional fuel in the first and second week of May 2011 from Russia, as well as assistance in starting up the Bushehr plant, which will prove to be a further thumb in the eye of P5+1 negotiators, though Iran is obligated in its agreement with Russia to return spent fuel after use, to forestall European and American fears of weaponization.

Ahmadinejad’s domestic critics, as well as representatives of the European Union, sound unusually similar in their reaction to the sudden call for more talks.

Raja News, a site previously supportive of Ahmadinejad that turned staunchly critical upon his abortive mutiny surrounding the Minister of Intelligence affair, published a derisive article (Farsi language) on May 10 questioning the purpose of the talks. Titled “What is the latest status of Iran’s nuclear dossier?”, the article describes the incompatible and unresolvable differences between what Iran and the P5+1 are willing to do to achieve compromise, noting that despite the sea changes happening in the Middle East, the obstacles to progress on the nuclear issue remain.

The European Union seems to agree that the renewed call for talks lacks promise or logic. “On its own, Mr. Jalili’s letter does not contain anything new and does not seem to justify a further meeting,” a spokesman for Catherine Ashton stated on May 11. Nevertheless, the European side indicated they will pursue a followup with Iran in the future.

Ahmadinejad’s rather frantic attempt to remind Iran’s domestic audience of his international relevance has utterly backfired. Rather than precipitating new and significant interaction between Iran and its global critics, Ahmadinejad has further revealed the worsening schisms plaguing the Iranian government. The move is a testament to Ahmadinejad’s desperation, besieged on all sides by former allies more loyal to the status quo than to a new generation of unorthodox populists.

The most puzzling question has been why there is so much talk of a gasoline sanction and other unnamed crippling sanctions when financial sanctions, which could deal a mortal blow to the Iranian regime itself, are soft peddled? Some say that the Obama Administration wants to hurt the regime, but not the opposition, so it is treading carefully to find the smartest sanction. I beg to differ. The concern for the impact of sanctions on the opposition is a smoke screen. There are financial sanctions that would have little negative impact on average Iranians while raising havoc for regime insiders and their business partners. Yet we don’t talk of these, much less take action. To my mind, the likely answer is that, at least for now, President Obama still wants to cut a deal with Iran and the IRGC and is not prepared to embark on a road that could lead to confrontation. He wants to appear tough but not be tough. The gasoline sanction is only a smoke screen to buy more time, while Iran becomes less and less dependent on imported fuels and continues to trample on the human and legal rights of its citizens.

Even this puzzle was recently answered in a statement on February 25 as reported by Reuters: “It is not our intent to have crippling sanctions that have . . . a significant impact on the Iranian people,” State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley told reporters. “Our actual intent is . . . to find ways to pressure the government while protecting the people.” It would, therefore, appear that we will continue to talk tough and pretend that we are pressuring the Tehran regime and supporting the suffering people of Iran.

Hossein Askari is Iran Professor of International Business and International Affairs at the George Washington University. During the mid 1980s he was director of a team of international energy experts contracted to design an energy plan and energy planning capabilities for Saudi Arabia.

Iran provided three major responses:

First, Iranian officials launched several accusations against the IAEA and, specifically Western governments, in order to discredit the resolution. They stated on November 30 that “the resolution was not that of the IAEA, but in fact the P5+1 are behind the resolution.”
(http://isna.ir/ISNA/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-1448051&Lang=E). Claiming that the IAEA Board of Governors favors the West in the decision-making process, Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA, Asqar Soltanieh, said on November 30 that, “the structure of the Board of Governors has been molded in such a way that gives Western states the majority votes and so the ability to manipulate the Agency’s activities.”
(http://www.presstv.ir/classic/Detail.aspx?id=112485&sectionid=351020104)

An Iranian lawmaker slammed the IAEA Board of Governors on November 30, saying the body only obeys the orders of “global arrogance,” which is a reference to Western states. (http://presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=112477&sectionid=351020104)

And Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast rejected the resolution the same day it was issued, saying it was passed “with insistence and political ambitions of certain member states.” “We think that this [resolution] is politically motivated and only aimed at exerting pressure on Iran,” he asserted. (http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=112324&sectionid=351020104)

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottki stated on November 30 that it is not possible to “find any logical reason for the Board of Governors’ decision.” He called the resolution “discrimination” and the “law of the jungle.” (http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=112517&sectionid=351020104)
Following this criticism, the Iranian parliament urged the government to reduce cooperation with the 5+1 and the IAEA. (http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8809081531)

Second, Iran has issued hostile warnings against any change in policy toward Iran by Western governments. Parliament speaker Ali Larijani said on November 30: “We will closely monitor your next steps and if you do not abandon the ridiculous carrot and stick policy, we will take a new approach towards you.” (http://www.isna.ir/ISNA/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-1448051&Lang=E)

Third, Iran announced over the weekend that it will start with the construction of 10 more nuclear enrichment facilities within the next two months “in response to (the) West’s offensive measures”. (http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8809091305)

Statements by Ali Larijani and a senior lawmaker raise suspicions that Iran could withdraw from the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT). According to Larijani, it does not matter “whether you are a member of the NPT or pull out of it.” >a href = http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/11/30/92793.html> (http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/11/30/92793.html)
Parliament member Hassan Ghafourifard stated on November 29, in an interview with state-sponsored television, that “there might be no use to stay in the NPT” if the West refuses to understand Iran’s position. (http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=107441&sectionid=351020104)

Timeline of nuclear negotiations with Iran (September 2009 – November 2009)